A Real Physicist Responds to the Climate Change Scam

[Dot Com]

Can dispute the sky is blue all you like. The sky's blue though just as climate change is happening.

^ that CrusaderFrank 1400PennAve.

BTW, your denier hive-mind cut 'n paste was so long so:

tl;dr

 

[Wyld Kard]

So, some senile old fart 4 years ago decides he knows more than all the rest of the physicists in the world. But what do all the rest of the scientists think of global warming?

http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action
Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.
Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.
Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased
sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase.
Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed
global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because
natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide)
from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate
system for millennia.
Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These
observations show large‐scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and
atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers,
snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with longunderstood
physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to
human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with
explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

The American Geophysical Union, which has more scientists studying global warming than any other scientific society.

Which means they NEED the fraud to continue.

OK, my dear little halfwit, explain the fraud. And the reason for the fraud. And present some real science in support of your explanation.

And present some real science in support of your explanation.

Hey dumbass, when exactly are YOU going to present some real evidence based on real science in support of the bullshit that you claim?

AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

All you have been doing is posting the same old lies and misinformation based on fraudulent science over and over.

 

[SSDD]

Realize your fail yet?

No...just your own fail. If I am taking a picture of the sun, then the camera, a solid body, and cooler than the surface of the earth, is between the earth and the sun...or do you have a magic camera that is made of nothing?

If I am taking a picture of the sun, then the camera, a solid body, and cooler than the surface of the earth, is between the earth and the sun

Why yes, the camera is cooler than the surface of the Earth, it is in space, after all.
Is that your explanation, the molecules on Earth don't emit, unless they know their photons will hit that cooler camera? Sounds very precise. No photons could accidentally miss the camera and hit the sun? Is that your claim?

Again...photons, if they exist don't experience reality in the same way you do.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Realize your fail yet?

No...just your own fail. If I am taking a picture of the sun, then the camera, a solid body, and cooler than the surface of the earth, is between the earth and the sun...or do you have a magic camera that is made of nothing?

If I am taking a picture of the sun, then the camera, a solid body, and cooler than the surface of the earth, is between the earth and the sun

Why yes, the camera is cooler than the surface of the Earth, it is in space, after all.
Is that your explanation, the molecules on Earth don't emit, unless they know their photons will hit that cooler camera? Sounds very precise. No photons could accidentally miss the camera and hit the sun? Is that your claim?

Again...photons, if they exist don't experience reality in the same way you do.

Your smart photons can't save your silly claims.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah, but they are one way photons, don't you understand that?

 

[Old Rocks]

Not one person who has ever claimed to have debunked the climate change/global warming theories has ever offered an argument against a more important question,

Why shouldn't we proceed as if manmade global warming was an indisputable fact, SINCE...

...all of the measures proposed are environmentally sound and sensible actions to take,

whether global warming is happening or not?

Why shouldn't we proceed as if manmade global warming was an indisputable fact,

Because spending trillions to slow our economy with more expensive, less reliable energy is a bad idea.

SINCE......all of the measures proposed are environmentally sound and sensible actions to take,

How much wind and solar do we need to replace our CO2 emitting energy sources?
No worries about all the land this will require? Pollution from solar panel manufacturing?
Battery manufacturing?

whether global warming is happening or not?

Why is warming bad again? Warmer is better than colder, after all.

Wind is less expensive than even dirty coal, and solar is within a whisker of costing the same as the dirty coal. Grid scale batteries will make both 24/7 sources. And ONCOR, the biggest utility in Texas is planning on installing 5000 megawatts of batteries starting in 2018.

 

[MaryL]

When you dig below the surface and steer clear of the hype and total bullshit the Warmers try to pass off as "Science" it becomes quickly apparent that AGW is the biggest scam in the history of science. I've excerpted part of a resignation letter Hal Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara sent to the APS. You'll remember APS because the AGWCult trots out their "Endorsement" of the AGW scam as somehow significant and meaningful. You'll soon see there far less to this "endorsement" than meets the eye

"So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer "explanatory" screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members' interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?"

US physics professor Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life 8211 Telegraph Blogs

When I see a topic preceding the word "scam", that tells me something right there. Like objectivity isn't your forte. I have seen the climate change in the last thirty years, and that is a fact. Only a fool would ignore the obvious.

 

[Dot Com]

When you dig below the surface and steer clear of the hype and total bullshit the Warmers try to pass off as "Science" it becomes quickly apparent that AGW is the biggest scam in the history of science. I've excerpted part of a resignation letter Hal Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara sent to the APS. You'll remember APS because the AGWCult trots out their "Endorsement" of the AGW scam as somehow significant and meaningful. You'll soon see there far less to this "endorsement" than meets the eye

"So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer "explanatory" screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members' interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?"

US physics professor Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life 8211 Telegraph Blogs

When I see a topic preceding the word "scam", that tells me something right there. Like objectivity isn't your forte. I have seen the climate change in the last thirty years, and that is a fact. Only a fool would ignore the obvious.

^ that

add to the at the BILLIONS of tons of CO2 being put into the atmosphere by the BRICs

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not one person who has ever claimed to have debunked the climate change/global warming theories has ever offered an argument against a more important question,

Why shouldn't we proceed as if manmade global warming was an indisputable fact, SINCE...

...all of the measures proposed are environmentally sound and sensible actions to take,

whether global warming is happening or not?

Why shouldn't we proceed as if manmade global warming was an indisputable fact,

Because spending trillions to slow our economy with more expensive, less reliable energy is a bad idea.

SINCE......all of the measures proposed are environmentally sound and sensible actions to take,

How much wind and solar do we need to replace our CO2 emitting energy sources?
No worries about all the land this will require? Pollution from solar panel manufacturing?
Battery manufacturing?

whether global warming is happening or not?

Why is warming bad again? Warmer is better than colder, after all.

Inevitably mankind is going to have to use renewable energy because non-renewables are just that,

non-renewable. They will eventually either run out or become devastatingly expensive to extract.

 

[SSDD]

Ah, but they are one way photons, don't you understand that?

What does "one way" mean to an entity that doesn't experience time and distance in the same way that you do? Apply the Lorentz relativity equations to a photon traveling at the speed of light....The equations say that a photon doesn't experience time or space. From a photon's point of view, it has no distance to travel and is there instantaneously. If that is true, then you must limit radiative transfer rules to the same as physical contact....do you also believe in back conduction?

 

[SSDD]

Not one person who has ever claimed to have debunked the climate change/global warming theories has ever offered an argument against a more important question,

Why shouldn't we proceed as if manmade global warming was an indisputable fact, SINCE...

...all of the measures proposed are environmentally sound and sensible actions to take,

whether global warming is happening or not?

Why shouldn't we proceed as if manmade global warming was an indisputable fact,

Because spending trillions to slow our economy with more expensive, less reliable energy is a bad idea.

SINCE......all of the measures proposed are environmentally sound and sensible actions to take,

How much wind and solar do we need to replace our CO2 emitting energy sources?
No worries about all the land this will require? Pollution from solar panel manufacturing?
Battery manufacturing?

whether global warming is happening or not?

Why is warming bad again? Warmer is better than colder, after all.

Inevitably mankind is going to have to use renewable energy because non-renewables are just that,

non-renewable. They will eventually either run out or become devastatingly expensive to extract.

Did you know that there are literal seas of hydrocarbons on other planets in the solar system?...Why then do you think that the same process that created the hydrocarbons there isn't at work here? Do you really believe the term fossil fuel literally?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When you dig below the surface and steer clear of the hype and total bullshit the Warmers try to pass off as "Science" it becomes quickly apparent that AGW is the biggest scam in the history of science. I've excerpted part of a resignation letter Hal Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara sent to the APS. You'll remember APS because the AGWCult trots out their "Endorsement" of the AGW scam as somehow significant and meaningful. You'll soon see there far less to this "endorsement" than meets the eye

"So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer "explanatory" screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members' interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?"

US physics professor Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life 8211 Telegraph Blogs

When I see a topic preceding the word "scam", that tells me something right there. Like objectivity isn't your forte. I have seen the climate change in the last thirty years, and that is a fact. Only a fool would ignore the obvious.

^ that

add to the at the BILLIONS of tons of CO2 being put into the atmosphere by the BRICs

billions? wow.

Any idea how many tons in Earth's atmosphere?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Not one person who has ever claimed to have debunked the climate change/global warming theories has ever offered an argument against a more important question,

Why shouldn't we proceed as if manmade global warming was an indisputable fact, SINCE...

...all of the measures proposed are environmentally sound and sensible actions to take,

whether global warming is happening or not?

Why shouldn't we proceed as if manmade global warming was an indisputable fact,

Because spending trillions to slow our economy with more expensive, less reliable energy is a bad idea.

SINCE......all of the measures proposed are environmentally sound and sensible actions to take,

How much wind and solar do we need to replace our CO2 emitting energy sources?
No worries about all the land this will require? Pollution from solar panel manufacturing?
Battery manufacturing?

whether global warming is happening or not?

Why is warming bad again? Warmer is better than colder, after all.

Inevitably mankind is going to have to use renewable energy because non-renewables are just that,

non-renewable. They will eventually either run out or become devastatingly expensive to extract.

must have been a lot of dinosaurs on Titan

which has hundreds of times more hydrocarbons then Earth

--LOL

 

[Dot Com]

Frank1400PennAve:

India says its carbon emissions will keep rising TheHill

India emits only 1.9 tons of carbon per person annually, less than the 5-ton international average. But it has 1.2 billion people and relies largely on coal for energy.

 

[mamooth]

Did you know that there are literal seas of hydrocarbons on other planets in the solar system?...Why then do you think that the same process that created the hydrocarbons there isn't at work here?

Because we're on a different planet with wildly different conditions. Temperatures here are not -300F, and the free oxygen quickly oxidizes any stray hydrocarbons.

Do you really believe the term fossil fuel literally?

The hilarious thing is just how many deranged conspiracy theories you fall for. As John Cook pointed out so accurately in his Conspiracy Ideation paper, the same logic-deficient mindset that causes people to fall for the denier conspiracy theory also causes those same people to fall for a whole pack of crazy conspiracy theories.

So what if nobody can find this abiotic oil (beyond a trace) that you claim exists in near limitless amounts? You have faith. Frank has faith. Jon has faith. Faith will get you through the crisis. Just keep believing, and that abiotic oil will magically appear.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ah, but they are one way photons, don't you understand that?

What does "one way" mean to an entity that doesn't experience time and distance in the same way that you do? Apply the Lorentz relativity equations to a photon traveling at the speed of light....The equations say that a photon doesn't experience time or space. From a photon's point of view, it has no distance to travel and is there instantaneously. If that is true, then you must limit radiative transfer rules to the same as physical contact....do you also believe in back conduction?

The equations say that a photon doesn't experience time or space. From a photon's point of view, it has no distance to travel and is there instantaneously.

Just because a photon "doesn't experience time or space" doesn't mean a photon can predict where it will impact warmer or colder matter, millions of light years away, and decide whether or not it will be emitted.
But that sure would be a magic photon, in pursuit of your theory.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Realize your fail yet?

No...just your own fail. If I am taking a picture of the sun, then the camera, a solid body, and cooler than the surface of the earth, is between the earth and the sun...or do you have a magic camera that is made of nothing?

If I am taking a picture of the sun, then the camera, a solid body, and cooler than the surface of the earth, is between the earth and the sun

Why yes, the camera is cooler than the surface of the Earth, it is in space, after all.
Is that your explanation, the molecules on Earth don't emit, unless they know their photons will hit that cooler camera? Sounds very precise. No photons could accidentally miss the camera and hit the sun? Is that your claim?

Again...photons, if they exist don't experience reality in the same way you do.

Is that your explanation, the molecules on Earth don't emit, unless they know their photons will hit that cooler camera?

 

[jc456]

When you dig below the surface and steer clear of the hype and total bullshit the Warmers try to pass off as "Science" it becomes quickly apparent that AGW is the biggest scam in the history of science. I've excerpted part of a resignation letter Hal Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara sent to the APS. You'll remember APS because the AGWCult trots out their "Endorsement" of the AGW scam as somehow significant and meaningful. You'll soon see there far less to this "endorsement" than meets the eye

"So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer "explanatory" screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members' interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?"

US physics professor Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life 8211 Telegraph Blogs

When I see a topic preceding the word "scam", that tells me something right there. Like objectivity isn't your forte. I have seen the climate change in the last thirty years, and that is a fact. Only a fool would ignore the obvious.

What climate change have you experienced? You stated this in the past and to date, failed to provide your evidence. Let's see your evidence!

 

[jc456]

Not one person who has ever claimed to have debunked the climate change/global warming theories has ever offered an argument against a more important question,

Why shouldn't we proceed as if manmade global warming was an indisputable fact, SINCE...

...all of the measures proposed are environmentally sound and sensible actions to take,

whether global warming is happening or not?

Why shouldn't we proceed as if manmade global warming was an indisputable fact,

Because spending trillions to slow our economy with more expensive, less reliable energy is a bad idea.

SINCE......all of the measures proposed are environmentally sound and sensible actions to take,

How much wind and solar do we need to replace our CO2 emitting energy sources?
No worries about all the land this will require? Pollution from solar panel manufacturing?
Battery manufacturing?

whether global warming is happening or not?

Why is warming bad again? Warmer is better than colder, after all.

Inevitably mankind is going to have to use renewable energy because non-renewables are just that,

non-renewable. They will eventually either run out or become devastatingly expensive to extract.

stupid!!!!!

 

[jc456]

Did you know that there are literal seas of hydrocarbons on other planets in the solar system?...Why then do you think that the same process that created the hydrocarbons there isn't at work here?

Because we're on a different planet with wildly different conditions. Temperatures here are not -300F, and the free oxygen quickly oxidizes any stray hydrocarbons.

Do you really believe the term fossil fuel literally?

The hilarious thing is just how many deranged conspiracy theories you fall for. As John Cook pointed out so accurately in his Conspiracy Ideation paper, the same logic-deficient mindset that causes people to fall for the denier conspiracy theory also causes those same people to fall for a whole pack of crazy conspiracy theories.

So what if nobody can find this abiotic oil (beyond a trace) that you claim exists in near limitless amounts? You have faith. Frank has faith. Jon has faith. Faith will get you through the crisis. Just keep believing, and that abiotic oil will magically appear.

you didn't answer the question: Do you really believe the term fossil fuel literally?